Eluemunor Tackles Ishiekwene Over Petrol Subsidy Debate, Says Nigeria Can Rethink Tinubu’s Policy

Veteran journalist and presidential affairs commentator, Tony Eluemunor, has launched a scathing critique of Azu Ishiekwene’s arguments against the possibility of reintroducing petrol subsidy in Nigeria, describing the position as “Devilnomics” and accusing the columnist of presenting a one-sided case against African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.
Eluemunor, in an article titled “Atiku, Tinubu, Subsidy Removal and Azu Ishiekwene’s Devilnomics,” published on September 3, 2026, said Ishiekwene’s earlier article, “Has Atiku Cornered Tinubu on Petrol Subsidy?”, appeared to examine the political implications of Atiku’s promise to restore petrol subsidy but, in his view, ultimately amounted to an argument against the feasibility of the policy.
According to Eluemunor, Ishiekwene advanced six major reasons why petrol subsidy could not effectively be restored, including concerns about local refinery investments, the legal framework governing petroleum pricing, crude oil availability, declining investment in oil production, the condition of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and alleged weaknesses in petroleum consumption estimates.
On the issue of local refineries, Ishiekwene had argued that restoring subsidy could undermine investments in refineries established without subsidy support, including the Waltersmith, Edo, Aradel and Dangote refineries.
Eluemunor rejected the assumption that any subsidy regime must necessarily depend on imported refined petroleum products. He argued that government could develop a new framework under which domestic refineries receive crude at a subsidised or preferential rate, thereby reducing dependence on imported petroleum products while protecting consumers from excessive pump prices.
The veteran journalist also challenged the argument that the Petroleum Industry Act, PIA, legally prevents the restoration of subsidy.
He questioned why the legislation could not be amended or repealed by the National Assembly if lawmakers considered such a policy necessary, stressing that the PIA is a man-made law enacted by Nigeria’s legislature and therefore subject to legislative review.
Eluemunor further disputed the interpretation of the PIA’s free-market pricing provisions, arguing that market liberalisation should not prevent Nigeria from designing a system that prioritises locally refined petroleum products.
He suggested that NNPC could establish commercial arrangements with domestic refineries while allowing imported products to compete in the market, giving consumers the option of purchasing locally refined petrol or imported products.
Crude Supply and Forward Deals
The columnist also took issue with Ishiekwene’s argument that limited crude availability could undermine any attempt to revive subsidy.
Ishiekwene had pointed to increased Nigerian oil production but argued that a significant portion of crude managed by NNPC had already been committed through forward deals, leaving limited room to meet existing obligations to the Dangote Refinery.
Eluemunor argued that such arrangements were not necessarily irreversible. He called for a review of previous crude-for-loan and forward-sale commitments, particularly where such arrangements might have compromised Nigeria’s ability to maximise the benefits of its natural resources.
He also proposed that Nigeria could pursue crude-for-refined-product arrangements with domestic refineries and potentially use savings generated from such arrangements to reduce pressure on the national economy.
According to him, the long-term objective should be to increase domestic refining capacity to the point where Nigeria could become an exporter of refined petroleum products rather than remain heavily dependent on imported fuel.
Oil Production and Investment
Eluemunor also rejected Ishiekwene’s argument that years of inadequate investment in Nigeria’s oil industry made subsidy restoration impractical.
He pointed to reports that Nigeria had met its OPEC production quota for three consecutive months, arguing that the immediate challenge should be how to efficiently manage existing production and revenue rather than using historical investment deficits as an absolute barrier to policy change.
He maintained that increased investment remained important for future production capacity and strategic reserves but should not automatically be presented as proof that subsidy cannot be reconsidered.
NNPC and Refinery Rehabilitation
On the state of Nigeria’s refineries, Eluemunor disagreed with Ishiekwene’s description of NNPC as a “dead horse.”
He argued that the failure of government-owned refineries should prompt investigations into previous contracts, expenditures and rehabilitation programmes rather than a conclusion that the facilities can never become productive again.
Eluemunor noted that governments in other oil-producing countries operate functional state-owned refineries and argued that Nigeria’s experience should therefore be examined through the lenses of accountability, management and technical competence.
He also welcomed President Bola Tinubu’s stated commitment to getting Nigeria’s refineries working, while expressing hope that the administration would succeed in doing so.
‘Atiku Was Talking About Local Refining’
Addressing Ishiekwene’s criticism of Atiku’s position on petroleum supply and border policy, Eluemunor stressed that he was not speaking for the former Vice President but argued that Atiku’s position should not automatically be interpreted as an endorsement of massive fuel importation.
Rather, he maintained that Atiku’s proposal should be understood within the broader objective of strengthening local refining and reducing Nigeria’s dependence on imported petroleum products.
Eluemunor Links Subsidy Debate to SAP
The most significant part of Eluemunor’s intervention was his criticism of what he described as the ideological foundation behind support for subsidy removal.
He linked the current economic direction of the Tinubu administration to the Structural Adjustment Programme, SAP, introduced under the military government of Ibrahim Babangida in 1986, particularly its emphasis on austerity, market liberalisation and subsidy removal.
Eluemunor argued that SAP produced severe social and economic hardships in Nigeria and across parts of Africa, including rising poverty, inflation, unemployment, higher food prices and declining access to public services.
He warned against celebrating short-term GDP growth without examining whether ordinary Nigerians were experiencing corresponding improvements in their standard of living.
According to him, increased revenue accruing to federal and state governments should translate into tangible improvements in infrastructure, education, healthcare and the welfare of citizens.
He consequently questioned why Nigeria would continue borrowing externally if government revenues had substantially increased following the removal of petrol subsidy and changes in federal allocations.
‘Tinubu Can Change Course’
Eluemunor concluded by urging President Tinubu to reconsider policies that have imposed severe economic pressure on Nigerians.
He argued that the same “courage” the President demonstrated in removing petrol subsidy should also enable him to reconsider the policy if evidence shows that it is worsening citizens’ living conditions.
“If he had the ‘courage’, as he termed it, to remove petrol subsidy, he could also summon the ‘courage’ to reintroduce it,” Eluemunor argued.
He maintained that no economic policy should be regarded as irreversible, particularly when its consequences are causing widespread hardship.
For Eluemunor, the central issue is therefore not whether Atiku Abubakar is politically popular or whether Nigerians support his 2027 presidential ambition, but whether the country can develop a workable petroleum pricing framework that protects consumers, strengthens domestic refining and prevents the poorest citizens from bearing the heaviest burden of economic reforms.
The article ultimately challenges the assumption that subsidy removal is the only viable path for Nigeria, calling instead for a broader debate on domestic refining, crude allocation, refinery rehabilitation, government revenue and the social consequences of economic policy.